Cooperman

The marking on the tube, specifically relates to an operating voltage for that unit. I may be wrong, but I think from memory it possibly relates to the "heater" voltage, which was specific for that model tube. It was important not to deviate from the tubes correct operating voltages otherwise it could be irreperably damaged. Whilst there is an agreeable amount of tube visible (the other 5" is buried deep inside the scan coil), and it does look remarkably clean, visual appearance is no guarantee that it's in any type of working order. It's quite curious that whilst the PCB is dated as 1975, it is showing a number of IC's which would make it quite advanced for it's day. Like the tube and socket, it all looks remarkably clean, which is one very big plus point. Directly below the "Beam" pot, there is a marking for "TAR. VOLT" which is the 'Target' voltage, but there doesn't appear to be any adjuster for the voltage level. It's possible this is an automated function, but to be honest, I don't recall using any cameras with anything other than a manual Target control. Best not to worry about that one just yet The two adjusters you may well need to use, are the "Beam", and the "Focus", but you won't touch those until you've first powered up the camera (waited up to 30 seconds for a picture to appear), and then report back on what you see. If the picture looks reasonable, they probably won't need adjusting (but I'm betting they probably will ). If I were you, I'd try and get the lens working on the tubed camera first, and then worry about using it on the Javelin. Finding a way of mounting a non standard lens onto a "C" mount is possibly going to be your biggest problem. That said, the iris motor is probably only drawing a few tens of milliamps, so it should be o.k. on the Javelin (If I have a moment, I'll see if I have any brochures for that camera). Incidentally, I used to use a 2/3" CMOS colour camera which probably had the same imager inside. Overall picture quality was not bad, but it did have a tendency to produce somewhat yucky blues!

Given the age of the camera, it would certainly be B/W! If you are able to easily remove the camera top cover,I'd certainly suggest it's worth doing it now, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, you can visually inspect the internal condition of the 'guts', just to make sure there is no obvious corrosion, wires hanging off etc. If you simply switch it on, without doing a couple of quick checks, it may just go pop and that would be that (it may in any case, but it doesn't hurt to take some simple precautions). You can visually inspect the circuit boards for any obvious problems (mould growth, burn marks where components are failing or have failed, melted insulation on wires etc.). Have a look for three specific trimmers / pots which will be marked as Target (T), Beam (B) and Focus (F). If the camera fires up o.k. when you eventually test it, you may well have to adjust these to try and get a usable picture (I can explain in more detail how you do that if necessary). As I mentioned previously, double check that the imager is fixed in position. You should see the back end of the glass tube (perhaps 1" exposed and visible) projecting from the rear of the front block (called the scan coil). On the rear of the tube will be a push fit round plastic connector with about 8 wires soldered to it. Incidentally, when first used, the camera would probably have produced a centre image resolution of perhaps 600 - 700 lines, and an edge of image resolution of perhaps 400 - 450 lines. Age is never kind to camera tubes, and depending on the type, they will still degrade with age, even if it has never been switched on. I must mention at this point, that if you are in any way uncomfortable or unfamilier with working on exposed circuits, do not do so with the camera switched on. There are high voltage points on the main circuit boards, and an accidental contact can be very very unpleasant .... at best!!! As to the lens, double check whether it clearly states 12v DC on the lens motors themselves. If it does, you should be o.k. to test. If in doubt, see if you can get hold of a 300mA regulated PSU, with switch selectable voltage output (probably only cost a few dollars). Initially do your testing with the PSU set to 6v DC, then 9v DC if it works o.k. I'd suggest you test the focus first, as that's the most obvious to show movement in the large front ring. If you underdrive the lens motor (e.g. 6v on a 12v unit), it will simply move more slowly than its normal speed. In control systems, that is a standard trick for fine adjusting. As to the iris, this is the basic explanation as to how it probably works in your situation. The lens is supplied with a DC Voltage from the camera (usually 12v DC on Red), a 0v Ground connection (normally Black or shielding), and a stripped down video signal (usually a white wire). The Iris Amp / Servo built in to the lens, uses the video signal to detect the level of the highlights (whites) in the image, and then automatically adjusts the output voltage to the iris motor, to drive it forward or backwards as required, to maintain the correct level of highlights in the image. It's a circuit design which is technically quite crude, but generally very effective. It's not normally a good policy to assume anything in this world, but having said that, if it is fairly obvious that the 1/4" jack has been soldered up a long time ago, and there are no obvious signs of it having been 'fiddled with', it's probably o.k. to risk connecting it to the camera. Having said that, if you visually look through the lens from both directions, if you can see that the iris is part open (or part closed ), I would suggest that you do your initial testing without plugging in the iris connector. The imager may well be a high sensitivity type (hence the need for an auto iris mechanism), but if you initially test it in low level room conditions, you won't do any damage and you may just get an acceptably exposed image. However, do not point the camera directly at a bright light source. If the tube is a Silicon Vidicon / Ultricon type, you would probably get away with it; if it's a Newvicon, Chalnicon or Saticon, you'll probably wish you hadn't! The only other point to mention, is with regard to the lens mount. It is quite likely that the lens will need to be positioned correctly on it's mount, as that appears from your photo to be the primitive mechanism that is used to back focus the image. You can move an object from very close to the front lens, to well away, and see if it comes into focus at a given point. If it is seen to be working, then we can worry about some of the fine tuning and adjustments later. Fingers crossed and good luck!

Hi lloyd, Sorry for the delay getting back to you, been a bit busy over the last few days! From what you've posted so far, I have some good news, and some not so good news. First off, the lens. The motor i.d. you came up with is spot on. The front motor does indeed drive the focus ring, the mid engine is the zoom and the rear is for the iris motor. They will all be pulling tens of milliamps when operating, so any half decent regulated supply ( 300mA+ ) will be fine for testing. The old square 4 pin connector used to be fairly common, although, I don't recall seeing one fitted onto a lens. It was probably a connector that the installer decided to use. In practice, you can either solder a couple of 'flying leads' to the rear of the connector (for testing), or just cut off the connector (after you've made a note of the connections - you never know if you might need to know later!). The three pole 1/4" jack plug would indeed be used for the auto iris function, and that pot almost certainly controls the 'threshold' for opening the iris. If you look at the plug, the tip is one connection, the thin band behind it is the second, and the main shaft is the third. If you're curious to see what's what, you can probably do a quick check with a test meter to confirm the connections (red would almost certainly be +Ve voltage, and White the Video connection. Now to the camera, and this is where the less good news may kick in. It does appear that the camera is a 1" tube model, but .... and this is possibly the killer, I can't see the tube! You need to shine a torch (flashlight) into the front of the camera; if you just see a hollow black plastic tube, then the cameras imager has been removed. If you see a glass tube with metal bits inside, then the faceplate of the imager has been shattered. If you see the light reflecting back, then the tube is in place and you may be o.k. To prove conclusively if the imager has been removed, take the top cover off the camera and look at the inside behind the lens mount. You should see a large cylindrical block with a few wires coming off the back. If you see an 'octal' socket hanging on wires but not plugged on to anything, then the cameras imager is definately AWOL. Incidentally, if you need a UHF plug (PL 259), I've got a whole box of them .... somewhere

Gesualdo, I've no experience of using your camera, but according to the spec sheet, the manufacturer rates it as a being able to produce images at approx. 40 feet using 850nM LED's. Now, given that the imagers spectral response may be perhaps 30 - 40% efficient at 850nM, the likelyhood is that it's efficiency would drop to perhaps 15 - 20% at 950nM (that's a guesstimated figure!), in which case it may only illuminate at perhaps 8 - 10' from the camera. If that were the case, then you could still use the higher IR frequency, but you are going to need to increase the light level substantially, just to get a reasonable quality image. It may not be an issue with the relative amount of IR being emitted using either 850 or 950 LED's, but simply an imager sensitivity problem. Personally, I'd first want to establish that the camera is working correctly at night, and the easiest way to do that (if you can) is to simply set up a very low level visible light source, perhaps a standard 25 watt or 40watt tungsten bulb in an inspection fitting about 30' from your target area. If you get a good image, then you know the camera is working o.k; if you don't, there may well be a fundamental problem with either the exposure mechanism (auto iris / electronic iris etc.), or the switchable IR filter.

Hi Orian, Welcome to the forum! Hopefully some other guys will be along shortly to say hello, Regards Cooperman

Hi Lloyd, Sounds like your having an interesting time trying to work out whats what! I think you need to establish what the camera is first of all. If you remove the lens, is the imager inside the camera a shiny circle. That would confirm whether it is a tubed camera. Have a look at the back of the camera - do you see any small holes / adjusters marked 'T', 'B' or 'F' ? Next problem is whether it's a standard or low light imager. If it is a low light camera, then the lens may be auto iris; if it is a standard imager, then it almost certainly would not be auto iris. That said, some early auto iris lenses were of a type known as 'EE', which meant they used a photocell to measure the light level, and then adjust the iris accordingly. Some motorised iris lenses, used seperate amplifiers to drive the iris, but they were'nt AI lenses in the modern sense. If the lens has two accessible 'pots' marked with "Alc" and "Level", then it is a conventional AI type auto iris lens. If you have a 25mm C mount lens, that was certainly built to work on a 1" camera, but as with any unknown lens / camera combination, you need to make absolutely sure that the rear of the lens doesn't project too far backwards from the mount, otherwise you could screw the lens onto the camera, and easily shatter the imager. (Incidentally, the 25mm lens should also work very well on the 2/3" camera). If you want to test the lens motor functions, it's initially best to do it on a tabletop, and not screwed onto the camera. It is tempting to make assumptions, but as a word of warning, lens motors could often be 6v DC, or 12v DC, and I've even got one old Canon optic which uses non standard AC motors (I can't even remember the last time I played with that one!). The fact that you found a 12v sticker may be a very useful clue, but for the sake of the lens, it's often better to test it at a lower voltage first just to be on the safe side. You could use a basic regulated voltage selectable power supply unit, and set it initially to 6v DC, just for initial testing. If the motors drive, you can then increase it to 9v, and finally 12v if you're happy you are not over driving it. All you'll find is that with the lower voltages, the zoom and focus functions will probably be much slower than normal (and yes they will physically stop moving when they reach the limits, but you should immediately disconnect the drive voltages when the function stops moving). From what you've described, it sounds like the Zoom and Focus motors are each driven with a pair of conductors (so four wires in total). So for example with the 4 core cable, Red may be Zoom (or Focus), with possibly brown as the 2nd wire Yellow may be Focus (or Zoom), with possibly orange as the 2nd wire If you apply a positive DC voltage to the Red, and 0v to the brown, either the Zoom or Focus should start to move. If not, try the Red with the Yellow. With this arrangement, the voltage would normally be reversed to drive the lens function backwards, using the switches on a control unit (so with this arrangement you only need a +ve supply to control the motors). Where the Orange and Brown have been 'commoned' togethor, this suggests that they would have been grounded to 0v, and each of the other two conductors supplied with either +12v or -12v (or a lesser voltage) to drive the function forwards or backwards as required. The other 'cord' you refer to, sounds like a standard AI lens Iris drive, so Red will be the +ve voltage (may possibly be 9v DC), White would be Video, and the stranded outer braid would be 0v Ground (earth). These wires would normally be fitted with a plug, that mates directly with a socket on the (rear of the ...?) camera (but only if it is a lowlight camera - hence the reason why I said it was important to work out what the camera is, before guessing too much further). There is a reasonable chance that the camera can be made to work, although if you have any doubt at all as to what connections to make, don't try something to see if it will work. You may just end up killing it stone dead, and that would be a shame!

Hi Lloyd, The Motorola model number doesn't mean a thing to me, as we didn't have Motorola CCTV cameras over here. If the camera body itself is the physical dimensions you mentioned, it may well be a 1" format camera. If you remove the lens, and then measure the diameter of the shiny disc that you can see inside the camera, that would be the tube faceplate (assuming of course, it is a tube camera). There used to be an XQ 1163 tube which was 1", but I don't recognise the S 1163A number either. The Pan and tilt head sounds like it may originally have been a Vicon; 35Kgs. capacity was not unusual, and certainly 1" cameras were often strapped onto 50Kgs. capacity heads if they were fitted with serious lenses. The Fujinon lens you've got is actually quite a nice bit of glass ( 25+ years ago, I used to have the manual zoom version, and I may even still have a motorised one knocking around somewhere). The 'C' bit means it was originally built to go on a 1" format camera. 20 - 100 mm is a 5:1 zoom ratio. The lens manufacturer wouldn't normally say what the magnification is going to be, unless they were quoting for a specific imager size. On an original 1" camera, it would have given a maximum 4X magnification (if you fit it onto a modern 1/3" camera it will provide 2.5x - 12.5x magnification). Being a larger format lens, if it's in good working order, it can equally be used on a 2/3", 1/2", 1/3" or 1/4" format camera with very good results, if you so wish. Incidentally, I'm certainly not laughing (a slight smile maybe), that's the type of cameras I used to have to work with when I started out

It's certainly been an interesting thread with lots of useful discussion, but as AVCONSULTING so accurately pointed out, there has been a slight degree of confusion regarding Back Focus and implied Depth of Field. In practice, for perhaps 75% of camera installations, Back Focus is not an issue simply because it is still possible to bring an image into sharp focus using the lens' focus ring, albeit that the imager may actually be sitting x/tenths of a millimetre, from where it should ideally be. Setting the back focus on a camera fitted with a fixed focal length lens, should take no more than a minute or two, and for a zoom lens, perhaps a couple of minutes extra just to be sure. The trick is to set Back Focus against a constant, which in optical terms is always infinity. Trying to set it against a measured point or the 'Minimum Object Distance, can waste a lot of time unnecessarily. Generally speaking, it's usually cameras fitted with fixed focus (maybe ultra wides) or zoom type lenses which may well need to be back focussed. I often find that cameras used in very low light with the lens aperture set to maximum, are the ones to worry about. Personally, I usually do the set ups, only after the camera has been running for an hour or two (in other words, operating at normal temperatures). I've actually seen quite a few cameras in the past, where the internal heat generated actually causes the chassis to expand a few thousandths of a millimeter, and that can be enough to lose critical focus, if the adjustments were initially made immediately after the unit was switched on from cold. Relying on technology to solve basic technical problems (like Back Focus) may be a nice easy way get through the working day, but in practice, there really is no substitute for learning how to do something properly, just so you don't get caught out when the technology isn't there, or it fails at a critical moment.

Decent ... but unfortunately not totally correct

I guess that makes you an honorary englishman jisaacmagee All we ever talk about is the weather Joking apart, there was an excellent programme on the BBC this week about super storms, and how they breed twisters. Seeing what that level of energy can do with even insignificant household objects is quite mind numbing, and way beyond anything we can comprehend over here. Keep your head down, keep safe and happy spotting!

Have a great show guys and gals .... ... and may all your hangovers be little ones Hey rory, hope you're improving. Maybe if you organise your own security event next time, we'll all have to come to you

TopGeek, The solution to your problem may be dictated more by the application itself. If you need to capture a single image instantaneously from 16 sources it can be done, but it may not be particularly cheap. On the other hand, if your individual image capture needs to be within so many hundredths of a second, then a 16 channel DVR may do the job. Consider that if a high spec. DVR is capturing (lets say for example) 240 ips across 16 channels, then although hundreds of images can be captured in a second under perhaps alarm input trigger conditions, you only need to recall the 16 coherent images captured at a specific point in time. That point could be referenced in a number of ways (timecode, lit LED on the image etc.) , and you could then recall those specific (sequence of) images captured in 16 / 240ths of a second (that's not really strictly accurate, but if you'll pardon the pun, I'm sure you get the picture ) Just a suggestion.

vitHoward, You're far too kind, and that creates a bit of problem for me; I always swore i'd retire when people start to think I know what I'm talking about .... .... and there's still so much working life in the old dog yet

This may be a slight drift off the original topic, but I'm sure you'll forgive me .... The improvements in technology may indeed make it easier for an individual to achieve a sharp focus, but some basic background knowledge is still very useful. Achieving the correct 'back focus' setting, is simply a mechanical mechanism that enables you to correctly exploit the full focus range of whatever lens is fitted (assuming of course it's not fixed focus ). The point about focussing the lens itself, exploiting the available depth of field, and achieving an optimum setting for the application, doesn't necessarily mean that the focus has to be set on the precise location of a target. Now before you think I've totally flipped, I'll try and explain in simple terms. If for example you were setting up a camera indoors under controlled lighting, perhaps looking along a corridor 50 feet long, the temptation might be to set the focus at around 20 feet; the assumption being that the depth of field will take care of much of the rest. In practice, it would probably have been better to set the primary focus at perhaps around 30 feet; the simple reason is that whilst depth of field increases in size as the distance to target increases, it is also a basic principle of optics, that the depth of field normally extends for about 30% in front of the point of focus, and roughly 70% behind (and not 50:50 as is often mistakenly quoted). So within reason, the further away you focus, the larger the depth of field (same basic concept for all lenses whether wide angle or telephoto). This is a standard principle much known to professional photographers, who are often told when taking pictures of people, to focus on the eyes. That way, the nose (a short distance in front) and the ears (much further behind) will hopefully all be sharp in the eventual picture. It's also a very good reason why in some indoor situations, in can be extremely beneficial to use a highly sensitive camera (allowing a smaller lens aperture, with a resultant greater depth of field).

rickgto, You've already had some good advice from the guys, but I thought I'd throw in a couple of suggestions. If you have time, draw up a rough plan of the lot, and mark down all the incidents you are so far aware of. This will possibly provide a visual of 'cluster' points where regular incidents occur. These are the locations you should concentrate on, as they have the highest probability of repeat offences. If you were to use cameras fixed at a distance, you'd probably be looking at using good quality telephoto lenses, (on a 1/3" camera) that would be possibly 25 > 50mm focal length. If you only install a couple of good quality working cameras in an area, you can always consider installing a couple of additional weatherproof housings with dummy cameras inside. If it's done properly then none of us would know if they were working or not. You could also think about another slightly sneaky option. If you have a hotspot which is difficult to cover from a distance, you could always consider a temporary recording system in one of the vehicles. A decent miniature bullet camera in the vehicle, and a 12v powered recorder hidden in the boot (sorry trunk!), would be ideal for catching suspects at short distances. As for manufacturers, I'll have to leave that up to the local experts to make some suggestions. Whatever you decide, it need not cost a fortune, but personally I'd avoid ebay unless you can afford to keep making mistakes.

If you want to produce the effect of a variable ND filter, you have to use two polarising filters, one on top of the other. As one is rotated, the light transmission will graduate from clear to virtually opaque. During daylight hours, to set up a camera that is going to be used with Infra Red at night, just use an IR filter of the same frequency (e.g. 830nM pass filter) over the lens, to allow fine adjustments to be made. k_jensen, with regards to the size of the Depth of Field, I never said that large with a small aperture, and small with a large aperture was wrong. I said that the diagrams you linked to were fundamentally wrong. The size of the Depth of Field, is only part of the story.

The subject of lighting is complicated, not simply because of the Colour Temperature of an individual light source, but for a number of other factors. Assuming the use of colour (color!) cameras, individual imagers will reproduce colours differently under a common source (for example daylight), and the cameras themselves will have highly variable 'White Balance' circuits which all help to create problems, even for the most experienced practitioners. Optical lens filtering can help in certain situations, but I can't even remember the last time I've seen that applied in the field. Understanding how a range of cameras will behave with different light sources, indeed often mixed light sources (e.g. daylight and fluorescent) is one of the hardest things to get to grips with. Unfortunately, whilst training and demonstrations can be useful, there realy is no substitute for experience. Incidentally, the majority of problems I come across, are where little or no consideration has been given to the requirements for appropriate lighting.

Thomas, If you were working over here, nobody would believe you .... except me

If it's any help, it's already been dark here for hours Incidentally, if you look at the left hand side of the image, there appears to be a shadow extending away at a slight angle. You might like to think backwards from that angle to see where it gets you .... or just let the reversed camera do it for you!

ashak, If you've checked your camera settings, it may be worth double checking that the lens connector has been wired correctly (check the camera manual to see what connections are listed for the DC iris lens socket). The Fujinon wiring scheme is supposed to be:- 1. Grey - Brake Coil 2. Green - Brake Coil + 3. White - Drive Coil + 4. Blue - Drive Coil If you've tried lighting and shading the CCD with the lens off the camera (but plugged in), and the iris is not working correctly, then that would suggest that if all else appears correct, there is a fault in the drive circuit. If you try an alternative lens and the same thing happens, then you know it's a fault with the camera. Incidentally, the 'pot' is simply allowing you to set the threshold (or if you prefer a reference), against which the iris is held open to the correct degree.

Just a quick suggestion jisaacmagee, Why not turn the Pano. to look behind, and hopefully you'll see where the light source is located. Just on the basis of what is quaintly known as the 'laws of physics', the shadow cannot be caused by a reflected light source, simply because the reflected light level would be significantly lower in level, than the direct source level, so it would be insufficient to cancel it out, if you see what I mean:wink:

For what it's worth k_jensen, the link you posted shows Depth of Field diagrams which are fundamentally wrong. If you've always managed to get away with focussing cameras with the lens stopped down, then obviously you're a much luckier man than I.

In theory, there used to be an advantage in using 24v AC, simply because "line locked" cameras would use the 50 or 60 Hz waveform as a reference to trigger the image capture; so if they were all on the same supply, they would all trigger at the same point, and that would make it easier for recorders and multiplexers to lock on to their video signals. In practice, modern recording and display equipment is so much more stable, there is little technical advantage now in using 24v AC over 12v DC. 24v AC can certainly be run further than 12v DC, but as an earth conductor is normally required (certainly this side of the water), it is much more prone to earth loop problems than 12v cameras which are not generally grounded. Also, it's often easier and cheaper to provide a battery 'back up' for 12v cameras.

There are three obvious options; The first is to use four 1/3" board cameras as you've already suggested - each fitted with a 2.8 or 2.9mm ultra wide lens covering 90+ degrees. You could do the same with conventional 'box' type cameras but of course the housing will need to be much larger. 2nd option would be to use a 180 degree fisheye lens on a conventional camera, but the distortion can be a bit of a pain to work with. 3rd option is to mount a camera fitted with an ultra wide lens, onto a minipan (or scanner) revolving platform. As the furthest distance to view is about 25' any option should work reasonably well.

For what it's worth, the VCC 3972 is quite a nice little camera. It's been discontinued for probably two or three years now, but I've still got a couple knocking around somewhere .... now where did I put them ....